With Windows 7 having made its grand debut, and with KDE4's vision making leaps and bounds forward with every release, we have two major software projects that have decided to implement some fairly drastic interface changes. Such changes are bound to receive some harsh criticisms - but the funny thing is, these criticisms usually come from people you least expect it from.

Though to some point I have to agree with the very meaning of this article, I still have to object in another way: "Aversion to change"? Maybe. But let's put it another way: If one is pleased and happy with what (s)he got, would there be a considerable reason to change? Put another way: Surely I like what KDE 4.x does from a technical point of view, and yet I feel more productive using my "old-fashioned" XFCE desktop tweaked to virtually the last bolt available to be right the way I want it / need it to be in my everyday work. Why should I eventually change for something new which, again, requires learning curve to be mastered just to be capable of working with a tool rather low-level (the base interface of my operating system), which will require learning curve and work in identifying things worth optimizing (in terms of configuration to say the very least) to make it a pleasant environment for everyday work? If doing this change, what do I really get in return, an eventually more visually appealing user interface left aside? What could eventually motivate me to overcome any "aversion to change" and adopt the "latest and greatest" with open heart and mind?